Telework produces a 22 percent increase in employees’ productive work time

In a recent congressional hearing, a narrative unfolded challenging the very foundation of remote work policies within the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Spearheaded by House Republicans, the discourse centered on the alleged inefficiencies bred by telework, casting a shadow of doubt over its productivity and efficacy. Yet a deeper dive into the evidence presents a compelling counter-narrative that not only defends but champions the merits of remote work.

Mark Green, the department’s chief human capital officer, was thrust into the spotlight, facing a barrage of criticism. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), had prepared a report that cherry-picked data to construct an argument against the effectiveness of telework, suggesting a direct correlation between remote work and the backlog of maintenance within the National Park Service.

This report, laden with unrepresentative data points, sought to weave a narrative that telework was a detriment to the productivity of federal agencies generally. But this narrative conveniently glossed over the fact that these issues were not the result of telework, but of longstanding systemic challenges and inaccuracies that had plagued the department for decades. This omission of context served to distort the true source of the problems, unfairly attributing them to the adoption of remote work policies.

Green’s testimony before the committee offered a stark contrast to the narrative being pushed by the subcommittee. Green provided a compelling account of how telework had not only preserved the department’s productivity but had, in many instances, significantly enhanced it. He spoke of improved performance metrics, higher levels of employee retention and increased job satisfaction and engagement among the workforce.

Green’s insights revealed a reality where telework acted as a catalyst for positive change within the department, challenging the unfounded assertions that remote work was inherently detrimental to productivity and efficiency.

This juxtaposition of political rhetoric against the tangible successes of telework within the Department of the Interior and beyond serves as a poignant reminder of the need for policy discussions to be grounded in evidence and reality, rather than being swayed by selective narratives.

For example, consider The Office of Personnel Management’s annual report about telework in the federal government. It showed that an overwhelming 84 percent of both employees and management expressed a firm belief in the transformative power of telework, not just in maintaining but in elevating the standards of work quality and client satisfaction.

What drives this surge in performance among remote workers? The answer lies in the unparalleled flexibility that telework offers. It allows individuals to sculpt their working environments and schedules to suit their unique needs.

By having the reins to control their work dynamics, employees harness their time and tasks with unmatched precision, culminating in work of superior quality. This positive trend isn’t just anecdotal; it is mirrored in performance evaluations, which consistently show teleworkers outpacing their office-bound counterparts in terms of output quality. Such findings spotlight the undeniable merits of remote work, emphasizing its role in crafting a more fulfilled and efficient workforce.

This is true not only within the federal government. Broader evaluations show the same outcomes. Recent studies, including Atlassian’s “Lessons Learned: 1,000 Days of Distributed at Atlassian” and Hubstaff’s detailed analysis of remote work productivity, provide compelling evidence that challenges long-held beliefs about the efficacy of traditional office environments.

Atlassian’s groundbreaking report, drawing on data from 200 CEOs from Fortune 500 and 1000 companies, delivers an unexpected verdict. It turns out that a requirement of in-person work has minimal impact on productivity.

This revelation is particularly striking, as it comes from the upper echelons of corporate leadership, with one in three executives of companies that mandated some in-office work reporting that such physical office presence did not enhance productivity. Such findings call into question the longstanding assumption that physical colocation is synonymous with effective collaboration and output.

Hubstaff’s extensive research takes this conversation a step further. The data reveal that remote employees dedicate a substantial portion of their work-week to focused, undisturbed tasks, surpassing their office-based peers by a considerable margin.

The details show how, on average, remote employees enjoy about 273 minutes of quality, uninterrupted work each day, in contrast to their office-bound colleagues’ 223 minutes. This 22 percent increase in concentrated work time for remote employees underscores how remote work, free from the typical office distractions of impromptu meetings and ambient noise, offers a more conducive environment for deep concentration.

The debate over telework within the Department of the Interior and beyond reflects a broader conversation about the nature of work in contemporary society. While political narratives may seek to cast doubt upon the efficacy of remote work, the wealth of evidence supporting its benefits cannot be ignored.

It is crucial to ground our policies and practices in the realities of the modern workplace, championing flexibility, autonomy, and the undeniable advantages that telework brings to the table.

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.